Tuesday, July 30, 2013

toward(s) and other ward(s)

The interview I did with the Chicago Manual of Style people has brought me quite a few new readers. (Not to mention a 'Hey! I saw you in this newsletter I subscribe to!" during [BrE] the school run. Next thing you know, it'll be the paparazzi.) One of these new readers is Linda, a Washington, DC editor, who wrote to ask if I'd covered toward and towards. And since I've been rather embarrassed for some time that I haven't covered this, Linda's request has gone to the front of the (AmE) line/(BrE) queue.

The first thing to say about toward and towards is that both are found in both Englishes. What is different is which one is more common and standard in each place. In the US, toward is more common, particularly in published work; in the UK, towards is. This is shown in the ratios of the two variants in each dialect. The Corpus of Contemporary American English has about 6 toward for every 1 towards. But the British National Corpusfavo(u)rstowards 23:1.

Towards is one of the things that I resisted for a long time after moving to the UK--because of the associations I had for it in AmE. My first teaching job was teaching remedial (AmE) freshman compositionin Illinois, and that was where I first reali{z/s}ed that I was a toward-sayer but that there were a lot of American towards-sayers. And I took it upon myself beat the 's' out of these people. I perceived the 's' as something that marked people as unsophisticated hicks. Most advice you can find on the internet these days will tell you that it's fine to use either. I was a young east-coaster in the midwest. Mea maxima culpa.

So, when I came to the UK and was surrounded by those esses, I just had to grit my teeth,much as I've learn{ed/t} to do with the BrE use of reckon (which says 'HICK' in capital letters to my northeastern US self) and whilst(which says 'PRETENTIOUS' to my US self). Live and let live, speak and let speak, as we're taught in Linguist School. [If you want to talk about those two, please use the comments sections at their linked posts.] These days, if I'm writing for a British publication or if I'm proofreading for a British writer, I do use towards.

The reason I've not done toward and towards in seven years of blogging is that I knew it'd bring up all the other -ward(s) words--and that means work, because they're not as straightforward. Toward(s) is almost always a preposition. Something like backward(s) can be an adverb or an adjective. In my dialect, I'd allow the 's' much more easily for an adverb than for an adjective and I'd allow the 's' more for the figurative use of the adjective than the literal. You may have different instincts about these:

Adjective (literal): a backward(s) motion

Adjective (figurative): a backward(s) idea

Adverb: You've got that on backward(s)

I am not going to do an in-depth analysis of all of these. Picking out figurative and non-figurative meaning would be just too labo(u)r-intensive. So, at this point, I'm just going to look at adverbs (since they're more like the preposition toward(s) anyhow). I'm using the Global Web-Based English corpus for this because I suspect that there's a high risk for mislabel(l)ing (or 'mis-tagging', in the corpus linguistics parlance) the parts-of-speech of these particular words. By using GlobWE, I at least know that the same 'tagger' did the tagging, so any mistakes should be comparable. In the table, the percentages are within-dialect. So the AmE numbers add up to 100% in each row and so do the BrE ones.

Adverbs

AmE ward

AmE wards

BrE ward

BrE wards

back-

23%

77%

13%

87%

down-

67%

33%

17%

83%

for-

98%

2%

94%

6%

in-

78%

22%

31%

69%

on-

59%

41%

20%

80%

out-

78%

22%

37%

63%

up-

40%

60%

13%

87%

So we can see here that:

Both dialects prefer backwards and (especially strongly) forward.

With the exception of forward, BrE prefers -wards, in keeping with its preference for towards.

With the exception of backwards and upwards, AmE tends to prefer the 's'-less version, in keeping with its preference for toward.

Showing you the percentages made the numbers clearer, but it hides some interesting things. For instance, Americans use onward(s) (1868 examples, counting both variants) a lot less than the British (5233 examples). Why? A quick glance at the examples shows that many of the UK examples were things like

from 1833 onwardsversion 1.5.2 onwardsfrom primary school onwards

AmE would tend to use on as an adverb in such cases, rather than the -ward(s) form. So, for example GlobWE has 11 examples of from 2008 onwards and 5 offrom 2008 onin BrE. Those numbers are reversed in the AmE portion of the corpus.

The other thing that interests me in those numbers relates to my day job, in which I study antonymy (opposite relations). Why do forward in AmE upwardshave different endings from their opposites? I can't come up with any semantic explanation. I'll just have to conclude with something I've been heard to say elsewhere (and may be heard to say again in Ashford and Ealing in September):
If you're looking for logic in vocabulary, then you're looking in the wrong place.

Fascinating, as usual. I've noted that rhotic speakers omit the first /r/ in "forward" so that it sounds like "toward the foe" to me, rather than "straight ahead". May be a regional thing, but I don't think so.

Since I was searching only for adverbs in the corpus, I didn't get the noun 'foreward', so that meant that the numbers didn't change much once I corrected the spelling. But it's much, much better to have it right!

Based on your anecdote, is there a regional, midwest difference? Coming from Illinois I think I use a fair amount of these examples with the s, especially in spoken language. They definitely don't sound wrong. Would have to look at my writing to see if I edit them out there.

There may be regional differences, but I couldn't easily find something on them, so I didn't go down that route when writing. But I think it might have more to do with how much time one spends with edited text.

What about pronunciation? Toward and towards can vary in pronunciation. More or less like it's spelled or a shorted form, /tɔːɹd/ (homophonous with "toured" for me). Do both pronunciations exist in British English as well?

@Mrs Redboots: 'Onward, Christian soldiers' is sung in some denominations in the US. But 'wheres'? I'm not sure what you're talking about. There's non-standard, dialectal 'anywheres', but you wouldn't find that in print, other than in dialogue. There's no 'everywheres'.

@ek: There will be variation in both dialects within and between speakers. Definitely between dialects because the vowels are different. You can hear the pronunciations in a lot of places on the internet. Forvo has disappointingly few for this word:http://www.forvo.com/word/towards/http://www.forvo.com/word/toward/#enOxford Advanced Learner's dict has a /w/-less pronunciation for North American: http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/towards

Re pronunciation of "towards", the first three pronunciations given in OED are, amusingly enough, /ˈtəʊədz/ /ˈtɔːədz/ and /tɔədz/; /təˈwɔːdz/ only squeaks in in fourth place even though I'd have thought it was universal in BrE and the first three long extinct. But JC Wells adds /tɔː(r)dz/ and for AmE /twɔːdz/ and even /twoʊdz/.

Except for "toward", these are two-syllable words with stress on the first syllable. "Toward" can be one syllable, or (maybe, it seems to me, in the more pompous sort of British speech, and to the annoyance of some purists) two syllables with stress on the second.

And are we forgetting "heavenward", "windward", "leeward" (which I am told might be said "loo-erd"), ... ?

@ RWMG n0aaa and vp, are you saying that for you there is a similar vowel in 'foe' and the first syllable of 'forward'?

In some American pronunciations, yes. I've heard it from the midwest.

To clarify, this is not my own pronunciation, nor is it the pronunciation of most Americans I know. I'm aware that it isn't the standard non-rhotic realization. I have heard "foe-ward" from a small number of Americans, all otherwise rhotic.

As far as I can tell the word "untoward" never takes an s (yes, that's a dangerous thing to say), and it's a strange word, anyway. You will know all about this, Lynne, being a scholar of antonymy: it looks like an antonym but as far as I can tell doesn't act as one, being an adjective and never (?) a preposition.

While it's probably a subject for another post, the use of I've not here is interesting. I never ran across this usage from an American speaker or writer until about twenty years ago, although I had heard it used by the British. I, like everyone I knew, always used I haven't.

In the mid-'90s, I've not started popping up on listserves and newsgroups. It seems as if I started hearing it spoken (by Americans) within the past decade at the very most. It continues to interest me because the uncontracted form of both phrases is exactly the same, so the choice of a contracted version must be do to something other than denotation.

I [BrE, recreational sailor] definitely pronounce leeward as loo-erd (actually, more loow-erd, but never loo-werd). I think it is the same in AmE.

I note that sailors also pronounce "forward" as for'ard in nautical contexts (so much so that in reported speech of sailors it is normally spelt for'ard, although the same writers don't spell out loo'erd).

Empty and Graham - I (AmE recreational sailor) pronounce leeward loo-werd or lew-erd, but probably not loo-erd. And never with an -s, although i'd put it on towards, backwards, etc. more often than not. I've heard lee-ward once or twice, though never but never from sailors.

These are hereabout~hereabouts, thereabout~thereabouts, whereabout~whereabouts

The OED treats them differently, citing the etymology of the -s as including an advert-forming suffix, while the -s in the -wards words is said to go back before English. Even so have the two ±s converged in some way?

Thank you for the Joe Evans reference, David - it is what I was thinking of (somewheres, anywheres), and also, I now realise, "anyways". I was interested to be linked to this on Facebook today, particularly no 9 ("Head towards the door and you'll see me") which is perfectly correct in BrE, but apparently quite wrong in USE.

It seems that -wards can be more informal than -ward — particularly with US copy editors. The OED gives evidence that -wards is generally more playful, yielding some more entertaining nonce-words than -ward:

-WARDSGod-wards Heaven-wards and Holiness-wards, people wards, you-wards, perfectionwards, ceiling wards, Parliamentwards, breech-wards, truthwards,Russiawards the new line may be fire-fringed and fatal. Afghanwards it is no such thing,Aunt Eliza's fowls—already strolling roostwards.He was growing downwards, brutewards.

Interestingly I (BrE) just found myself typing a message (semi-formal, attempting to persuade) with "moving toward [something]". I then decided to change "moving" to "moving further" and found myself automatically adding an s to "toward". It was only after I made the change that I remembered this discussion.

I feel that with or without the s is "correct" in both cases but my personal preference is definitely to use without the s in the first and with the s in the second. I wonder if the difference is nothing to do with meaning but more to do with the way it would sound if spoken (the context was close to public speaking, in my mind)?

I have noticed in the past that my style is noticeably different when public speaking than in other formal contexts. I also sometimes suffer from a slight stammer but it is very consistently less (fortunately) when public speaking. So context definitely changes the may my speech works.

The Linguistic Atlas of England (1978) shows that far less of the country prefers forwards over forward than prefers backwards over backward. So whatever the explanation is, it goes back a way(s). I doubt if there are any divergences among the compass-points (e.g. "northwards" but "southward")?

"afterward(s)" might be a purer adverb test as it's never an adjective.

I think I would favour "backwards" for the literal direction adjective to distinguish it from metaphorical backward = primitive, underdeveloped. (Though "a backwards glance" may be metaphorical, it's the whole glance that's such, not specifically the direction.)

"afterward(s)" might be a purer adverb test as it's never an adjective.

The OED lists an obsolete use 'final, last mentioned', and a nautical use related to aft. We can disregard these two, but they also give 'existing or occurring at a later date' with a spread of quotes from 1848 to 2009.

The afterward quote is from the Korean Times, but the one before sounds plausible, if unusual:

Without a robe..he could not wait out a storm or the afterward time until the snow gave up the hidden trail.

Writers seem to have found it a handy way to avoid Latinate subsequent without using the rather bland later.

I've just caught a snatch of Frazier, a show I'm only vaguely familiar with. A character said for God's sakes which sounded decidedly odd, since she's supposed to be a British character who retains much of her Northern English accent while living in America.

I've just caught a snatch of Frazier, a show I'm only vaguely familiar with. A character said for God's sakes which sounded decidedly odd, since she's supposed to be a British character who retains much of her Northern English accent while living in America.

David: The character you're referencing from the show Frasier is Jane Leeves, and I was amused to read your comment because I recall witnessing an argument about whether Leeves was indeed English -- I believe someone told me he'd seen her do a stand-up comedy act with an American accent. In any case IMDB.com says she was born in Ilford, Essex, England, UK (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005137/?ref_=tt_cl_t2), and if "for God's sakes" sounds inauthentic to you I'd guess it's because the show's American writers failed to make what for her character would be a meaningful distinction. From my standpoint as an American I would say "For God's sakes!" as a standalone expression of aggrieved exasperation (of which there are plenty on the show Frasier) and "For God's sake" as a prelude to additional speech, such as "Oh for God's sake, would you stop badgering me?" On the other hand it's entirely possible I'm inventing this distinction and fail to honor it in my own speech.

@ek: Americans don't have a difference between 'loo-werd and lew-werd'. But to the Southeastern English the 'ew' spelling would signal that you're supposed to pronounce it basically as 'yew'. Here's an old post on the matter: http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/missing-js.html

From my standpoint as an American I would say "For God's sakes!" as a standalone expression of aggrieved exasperation ... and "For God's sake" as a prelude to additional speech, such as "Oh for God's sake, would you stop badgering me?"

Interestingly, it was neither of these. The character was pregnant and the joke lay in the words she used to refer to this. The phrase in question was a framing device, but far from being a prelude it followed the wisecrack. I forget the details but it was approximately:

while I'm [PREGNANCY JOKE] for God's sakes!

In my speech and, I think, in British speech generally it can only be for God's sake!.

In both varieties, the phrase is a tag with no independent intonation. In words which she might have used

to be a ↗WALKing ↘INcubator for God's sake(s)

I wouldn't be in a hurry to criticise the writers. Although her basic accent is recognisably attached to a particular English region, the actress does make it sound as if it's been modified by living in the US.

Interestingly, it was neither of these. The character was pregnant and the joke lay in the words she used to refer to this. The phrase in question was a framing device, but far from being a prelude it followed the wisecrack.

David: thanks for clarifying. To be honest in all my 57 years I've never given a moment's thought to the possibility that I might use both "for God's sake" and "for God's sakes" and that the context would be crucial to my choosing one over the other. So once again I've come away from a visit to separated by a common language with unexpected and slightly jarring insights into my own linguistic ignorance.

Still, I find it interesting and significant that Leeves's line ended with "for God's sakes", because in the unlikely event the writers had decided to start with this oath -- and they wouldn't, because that reading wouldn't be funny -- Leeves would have said, "For God's sake, I'm [PREGNANCY JOKE]."

Essentially the superfluous "s" serves to tone down the severity of the oath and cues the speaker as expressing near-mock frustration.

Which I suppose is a longwinded way of saying it's very informal usage -- more informal than "For God's sake". Oddly, now that I think about it the same is true of "For Christ's sake". Were I writing pulp fiction I'd likely pursue shorthand character authenticity by having someone say, e.g., "For chrissakes, don't do that!"

Anyway, you make a good point about Leeves's character using the American version of "For God's sake" simply because she's supposedly lived in the U.S. for quite a while -- in fact, according to IMDB the show ran from 1993 to 2004 and I think Leeves was in every season.

@Lynneguist. Notice that the person who made the comment distinguishing lew-erd and loo-erd indicated he speaks American English. Had it been a British person, I perhaps would have figured out just what you indicate. But it wasn't.

That doesn't even make sense. You made a comment to ME in reply my comments responding to an anonymous American poster who indicated lew and loo for different pronunciations (one he/she uses, one he/she probably doesn't). Differences in SE England aren't particularly relevant to my question to the anonymous American (or AmE speaker at least). And if it's relevant to that person, no reason to say it to me.

721OK, I've discovered how to use Oxford Dictionaries Pro for regional variety information.

1. Click on Advanced searchDictionary/Thesaurus tab.

2. Type in the word or phrase in the first box.

3. In the third box, select Full text from the click-on menu.

4. Either

4a1 Click Search. 4a2 On the next page, click one of the Refine by menus and select a filter.

or

4b1 Menu-slick and select or check a box for search criteria, as appropriate.4b2 Click Search.

I think 4a works better than 4b, because the Refine by menus don't offer choices for which there is no data.

It's by no means perfect. Many of the results are not the text you want but a link to where you can find it. And some of the results I've got are mysteriously irrelevant. I suspect this is a result of debugging of this new and complex site.

An example

Towards selected for the Region US yields 8 instances. Five are actually from definitions — I would guess definitions from an Oxford Dictionary of American English. The remaining pair are from database examples:

favourable(of a wind) blowing in the direction of travel: by sailing towards the land first you will find more favourable wind

By contrast, towards selected for the British US yields 18 instances. Again, most are in definitions. Two with towards in the data text are:

brickwork(brickworks) [treated as singular] British a factory where bricks are made: we head over towards the old brickworks

nose to tailBritish (of vehicles) moving or standing close behind one another, especially in heavy traffic: the traffic grinds nose to tail along the road towards Windermere

I hope there's a way of searching that isn't mediated by dictionary meaning entries. I haven't yet found one. So the resource may be of limited use for quantitative data — but it promises great things for qualitative data.

I think it's a matter of register for me (AmE, California). The s ending spills out of my mouth naturally, part of my native dialect. I don't think I use it in writing. Another example of this is "ways," as in "go a ways down the road..."